Pelosi’s Aim To Prevent Trump From Being Elected in 2024

.
This section contains information about each of our so-called “Working Groups” that are currently underway.

During our 19 years of existence, we have had 5-6 so-called Working Groups whenever a particular policy issue (1) may require immediate action on the spur of the moment (rendering addressing it at the next regular monthly meeting impractical), and/or (2) may require long-term attention.

*****
Recent examples in the second category (“long-term attention”) are

(1) Our 2016-2018 Working Group to oppose the Destruction/Extinction of Great Salt Lake to grow alfalfa hay to feed Chinese cows, and

(2) Our 2018-2019 Thorium-Fission Working Group to solve global warming 100% in short order WITHOUT having to invade other countries militarily (such as China to prevent it from bringing on stream another monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant EVERY WEEK) when the only economic green-energy source is nuclear (which even Bill Gates recognizes) and it is 100% safe if the fuel is thorium which is incapable of exploding so it cannot be used to produce a bomb, and which does NOT even need cooling systems or containment chambers.

*****
APPALLING example in the first (“short-fuse”) category --

The need for Working Groups in the first category was first recognized more than 12 years ago -- as described on the face of this bulletin board for Sec. 3 entitled “Possible Topics for Future Meetings” in the portion entitled “SHORT-FUSE NOTICE” describing, inter alia, the Yale University Biology Department’s creation of “Chimeras” with 50% human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA and PLANS TO CREATE “Chimeras” with 75% human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

Appallingly, this information was brought to our attention by a report on the PBS Newshour comprising an interview of a Yale Biology Prof. by Gwen Ifill, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor of the PBS NewsHour.

(1) “Appallingly” because Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

(2) But, even more “appallingly,” Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Gwen Ifill’s report of the Yale Biology Department’s Human/Chimp “Chimeras” was the topic of our 4/9/2008 meeting for which attendees were required to watch “The Island” – a 2005 movie starring Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor who are clones of wealthy individuals who have financed the creation of their clones so that their vital organs can be “harvested” if the wealthy individuals ever need transplants. [“Harvesting” meant, of course, death for the clone!!!]

*****
Chimera Reprise and Our “Short Fuse” Response -

Unfortunately, a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) regarding “Chimera” research appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

We formed a “Short Fuse” Working Group and filed comments with the NIH before their 9/6/2016 deadline!!!
Post Reply
Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Pelosi’s Aim To Prevent Trump From Being Elected in 2024

Post by Pat »

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Press Reports That An Impeachment AND CONVICTION BY THE SENATE will prevent President Trump from running for President again in 2024.
From: Pat
Date: Tue, January 12, 2020 8:31 am MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

As you are probably aware, there have been a lot of press reports to the effect that if President Trump is impeached again by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate, he cannot run for President again in 2024.

Could you please provide some enlightenment?

Could you also please comment on an article in Politico by a Law Prof. from Georgia State who claims Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know what she is doing – please see https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... acy-456937 for his article entitled “Democrats Are Pursuing the Wrong Impeachment Charges Against President Trump.”

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Press Reports That An Impeachment AND CONVICTION BY THE SENATE will prevent President Trump from running for President again in 2024.
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, January 12, 2020 2:13 pm MST
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Yes, there has been a lot of misinformation in the media recently about whether impeachment and conviction by the Senate would bar President Trump from running for President again in 2024, which is to be expected when reporters attempt to opine on legal matters.

However, Speaker Pelosi and her Caucus include some very able and shrewd Constitutional Scholars who usually appear to know exactly what they are trying to accomplish. So a mere Georgia State Law Professor really should think twice before embarrassing himself.

But back, first, to the notion in the media that an impeachment and conviction by the Senate would bar President Trump from running for President again in 2024.

You have probably noticed that most (if not all) such claims in the media fail to explain why this might or might not be true.

Instead, they merely join the chorus of those who apparently think that any grounds for impeachment and any conviction will have this effect.

Article I Section 3 provides vis-à-vis impeachment --

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

**********
The important thing to notice is that the second paragraph of the quotation states that “Judgment” shall not “extend FURTHER THAN removal from Office, and disqualification to hold…..”

Just like criminal law might prescribe a MAXIMUM sentence which, of course, is NOT REQUIRED to be imposed, the plain language of the second paragraph is merely prescribing a MAXIMUM punishment which is NOT REQUIRED to be imposed.

NEVERTHELESS, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (one of the “Civil War Amendments”) provides –

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or an office of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a two-thirds vote of each House, remove such disability.”

The important thing to notice is the requirement to have “ENGAGED in insurrection or rebellion…or GIVEN aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Speaker Pelosi’s Article of Impeachment alleges that the “high crime or misdemeanor” required for impeachment is “Incitement of Insurrection.”

It would be hard to argue that being guilty of “INCITEMENT of Insurrection” did not constitute having “ENGAGED in insurrection.”

And it would be hard to argue that a VALID conviction by the Senate for “INCITEMENT of Insurrection” does NOT invoke Sec. 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Georgia State Law Prof, instead, wants Speaker Pelosi to base her Article of Impeachment on “seditious conspiracy”!!!

He thinks this would be easier to prove.

But does Speaker Pelosi merely want to prove a “high crime or misdemeanor” or does she want to prevent President Trump from running for President in 2024???

Merely proving a “conspiracy” just does NOT suffice under the Fourteenth Amendment!!!

A criminal “conspiracy” of any kind requires (1) an agreement between/among two or more persons to do something illegal, and (2) as few as one of the conspirators to take an action in furtherance of the illegal enterprise.

ACCORDINGLY, CONVICTION OF THE LAW PROF’S “CONSPIRACY” DOES NOT MEAN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN CONVICTED AS BEING AMONG THE CONSPIRATORS WHO DID TAKE ACTION!!!

**********
Some Additional Issues

Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the nation’s foremost constitutional and criminal-law scholars and successful defense counsel in many of the nation’s highest-profile criminal cases, was also a long-time Board Member of the National American Civil Liberties Union (aka ACLU).

BTW, he joined President Trump’s defense team for the Senate impeachment trial a year ago in order to argue one very-narrow issue.

Namely, whether the Article II Section 4 of the Constitution means what it says when it provides –

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Many members of the media and Congresspersons had been arguing that Impeachment and Conviction did NOT require “treason, bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

In other words, to take a principle to its extreme in Law School 101 manner to test its validity, opponents were arguing that they could impeach anyone if they didn’t like her/his looks!!!

Or for no reason at all!!!

So why have I brought up Prof. Dershowitz???

FIRST, he has opined that President Trump did NOT incite insurrection, but merely exercised lawfully his freedom of speech.

Of course, just because Prof. Dershowitz says so does NOT NECESSARILY make it true.

HOWEVER, the point raised by Prof. Dershowitz is precisely the reason why the Georgia State Law Prof thought Speaker Pelosi was wrong to base her Impeachment Article on incitement of insurrection, rather than seditious conspiracy.

While losing sight, as discussed above, of Speaker Pelosi’s objective.

SECOND, Prof. Dershowitz has also opined that once President Trump leaves office, Congress loses its impeachment jurisdiction over him.

In other words, only criminal courts (whose own jurisdiction was suspended while President Trump was in office) have any jurisdiction over him.

The reason for mentioning this jurisdictional point???

Once again, members of the media have been opining that the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial after a person has left office.

Without, of course, explaining why they think so (at least failing to do so in every case I have found).

President Ulysees S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, appears to have been a thoroughly corrupt official in zillions of ways.

Facing impeachment by the House of Representatives, he resigned on 3/2/1876 and President Grant accepted his resignation 10:20 am, informing the House at 11:00 am that Belknap had resigned and his resignation had been accepted.

Nevertheless, the House proceeded to impeach Belknap on five Articles of Impeachment by unanimous vote.

The leaders of the Senate started an impeachment trial on 4/5/1876.

Belknap’s defense team argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction since Belknap had already left office.

The Senate voted 37-29 that it did have jurisdiction.

However, the Senate then failed to achieve the 2/3 vote required by the Constitution for conviction.

Members of the media have been recently claiming that the impeachment and Senate trial, both following Belknap’s departure from office, is “PRECEDENT”!!!

Nonsense!!! At least NOT in the sense of being legal authority!!!

Prof. Dershowitz might, or might not, be right about the loss of Congressional jurisdiction for impeaching and convicting after a person has left office.

But the mere assertion by either house that it has jurisdiction does not make it so.

Prof. Dershowitz would argue that until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue, such assertions are nothing more than exercising Freedom of Speech to voice a NON-AUTHORITATIVE OPINION.

[BTW, current U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WVa) was caught on television over the weekend counseling President-Elect Biden to request a halt to the current impeachment action – WHILE ERRONEOUSLY OPINING THAT THE 2/3 SENATE VOTE FOR CONVICTION IS MERELY A PROVISION IN THE SENATE’S RULES!!! IN OTHER WORDS, THE SENATE BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE COULD CHANGE ITS RULES TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION FOR TREASON!!! As quoted earlier in this essay, Article I Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution contains the 2/3 vote requirement.]

[I’m surprised Sen. Manchin’s error hasn’t already been repeated as “Gospel” by members of the press!!! Without citing the source for this "pearl of wisdom"!!! Perhaps the press will do so yet!!!]

Enough already!!!

If you have any comments or questions, I know you’re not shy!!!

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Section 8 – Working Groups Currently Underway”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest